If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post and use all the features of the Chess2U forums. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Larry Kaufman wrote:«As for rook and knight vs. two bishops and pawn, with nothing else but pawns on the board, the rook's side has a mild advantage, but add a rook to each side and the game is dead even. In general, with other pieces on the board, this imbalance should be considered even, with only a trivial edge for the rook's side»

Quote wrote:«In open positions where the knight has no outposts in the centre, the strength of two bishops and a pawn is no less (and tends to be greater) than that of a rook and knight»

Steve Mayer wrote:«Many of the Classicists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century claimed that two bishops versus rook and knight were equivalent. I don’t believe that this is the case, i.e., I think the extra material will usually win out, but this view continues to influence chess thinking to some extent even today»

Steve Mayer wrote:«Adding the better cooperation of the rook with the bishops, many Soviet theoreticians believed that, in active positions, rook and two bishops outperform two rooks and a knight»

[Hide][/Hide]

In this game i decided to remove the h7 pawn. According Lasker the rook pawn is only worth ½, so if we add together the pair advantage white's compensation is equivalent to 1.00 pawn.

G. Kasparov wrote:Indeed, two bishops and a pawn are often sufficient compensation for a rook and knight, but here the decisive role is played by defects in the pawn structure. Although, of course, Black's tasks is not easy: in some cases the bishops together with the queen are able to spring an unpleasant suprise. - My Great Predecessors, Part II, Game 93

Glen Flear wrote:The defender probably has more chances of successfully defending with the pair of bish-ops than "with other minor piece combinations. This seems to hold true even when the boardisn’t opened up for bishops. Indeed, there is a certain school of thought that claims that ’apair of bishops equals a rook and knight in the ending’. I’m not sure that this assertion can beproven, but I decided to look at it from a statistical point of view.

From a sample of 68 high-level games in the NQE of rook and knight vs two bishops (thistime with players rated 2550 and above), there were 30 wins for the rook< and knight duo, 20for the bishop pair, and 18 draws.

The number of wins achieved by the bishops seems quite high, which may reflect thedouble-edged nature of this imbalance, but the overall percentage is a respectable 57% to43%. We can interpret this as such: a pair of bishops shouldn't be underestimated, but therook and knight are still superior.

Glenn Flear wrote:«A pair of bishops shouldn't be underestimated, but the rook and knight are still superior»

Glenn Flear wrote:Although I fortuitously saved this game it gave me the lasting impression that, ceteris paribus, rook and knight are superior to two bishops. Here, even with an extra pawn, Black was always somewhat worse. I’m also willing to bet that White’s chances are better than 57% (see the introduction to this chapter) in the initial position, but everyone is entitled to their opinion! My impression is that, in cases where the pawn structures are intact, the bishops can’t find enough targets and are thus inferior.